Friday, January 8, 2016


Liberals are committing the error of codifying their particular morality in secular law. People with contrary moral convictions are facing criminal charges. The freedom of religion means the Government can't force you to act against your conscience. If we persist on this road, we end up in an oxymoron: a liberal tyranny. 

McConnell speaks after the verdict.

UPDATE: The Public Prosecution Service is facing growing calls to explain why it dragged Pastor James McConnell to court in a case estimated to have cost the public purse up to £50,000.  The pastor walked free after a judge found him not guilty of two offences linked to an address delivered at his north Belfast church in May 2014. He had described Islam as "heathen" and "Satanic" and "a doctrine spawned in Hell", and said he did not trust Muslims.
Yesterday a judge said that while he considered the remarks offensive, they were not "grossly" offensive under the law. Speaking afterwards Pastor McConnell said the case should never have got to court. And last night there was growing criticism of the PPS over its handling of the case. (...) a judge said the remarks did not meet "the high threshold of being 'grossly offensive'." District Judge Liam McNally said: "The courts need to be very careful not to criminalise speech which, however contemptible, is no more than offensive. "It is not the task of the criminal law to censor offensive utterances. "Accordingly, I find Pastor McConnell not guilty of both charges." Pastor McConnell felt justice had been done, adding: "I'm not against any Muslim in this country, and I want to make that absolutely clear. "When I preached that sermon I wasn't against any Muslim. I was against the theology of the Muslims - against what they believe in." (Source)
The verdict was welcomed by Peter Lynas, national director of the Evangelical Alliance Northern Ireland, who said: "Today's verdict is a victory for common sense and freedom of speech. However, until the law is changed or clear guidance is issued, there will still be concern about further prosecution. The Public Prosecution Service need to explain why this case was brought and assure everyone that this will not happen again. "This case contains challenges to both the State and the Church. It is vital that the State does not stray into the censorship of church sermons or unwittingly create a right not to be offended." (For more scroll down to log on June 20, 2015). (Source
There's another aspect in the prosecution of these cases few realise. Maj. Coughlin has explained in a recent video, our leaders are basically enforcing UN Resolution 16/18, the OIC's 10 year program to enforce the Islamic equivalent of slander. This is not the same legal concept the West is using. Islamic slander means a violation of the interests of Islam. Watch Maj. Coughlin's lecture (source).

H/t @DickKraaij

Sep. 12, 2015


The Archbishop of Canterbury has met with PM David Cameron last week amid growing concerns that Christians in Syria will be largely excluded from the 20,000 refugees due to come to the UK over the next five years. The Government, in line with European Union policy, is committed to taking in refugees from UN camps in Syria and neighbouring countries. It cannot discriminate in favour of any one religious group. (Source) Even though Christians are specifically targeted for genocide. What we have here is a number of fatal philosophical flaws in liberal dogma. To begin with it conflates religion with race. The two are fundamentally different! Race is irrelevant and inherent. It isn't open to choice. We are born with a number of physiological characteristics that do not determine our actions or who we morally are. Our values on the other hand (determined by religion, ideology, philosophy) are ultimately free choice. We are certainly not born with certain ideas or knowledge.

The second fallacy in liberal doctrine is the idea that their particular brand of morality is a neutral stance. Neutral means: no opinion whatsoever. There is an entire field of subjects that are a matter of personal choice. They are simply not for a Government to decide. Some are deeply personal and voluntary, others are decided by society at large (from which the Government is excluded). But again, these subjects must never be codified in secular law if we want to avoid ideological tyranny.  It is true that a Government cannot discriminate between citizens. It is however another matter that our guiding principle is Liberty. If we hold this dear, it means we must declare ideologies (e.g. religions) that are hostile to that principle, our enemy. We don't expect the Government to protect Nazis; so why do we take in Muslims holding values that are hostile to our own, while we discriminate Christians for their religion? It makes no sense.

Sep. 6, 2015


US Marshals have taken Kentucky clerk Kim Davis into custody for refusing to issue same sex marriage licences. 

UPDATE: For Libertarians, New Atheists and other followers of amoralist ideas such as multiculturalism, the following argument ought to be the final nail in the coffin for Kim Davis and her supporters. On the surface it looks great, but there's a catch they themselves can't see. The statement puts every belief (and philosophy) on even par, which is clearly a mistake, even by their own moral standard, which is liberty, democracy and rights. They must be total ignoramuses, live on Mars, or have to be in denial not to understand that Islam is incompatible with that standard. Every religion or philosophy that refuses to make its doctrine second to the philosophy of Liberty, is an enemy of their standard. Islam rejects their standard, but Christians emphatically do not! This is why the followers of moral relativism are sitting ducks for the forces of Islam: they can't tell friend from foe. And as we see in the case of Kim Davis, they would have us live in an amoral tyranny of their own making because of this fallacy.

Sept. 3, 2015

US Clerk Who Refused Gay Marriage License Arrested

Let's start by pointing out that the Government should not be in the marriage business. This is crucial. The 'secular authority' usurped the 'right' to allow or refuse marriages from the 'sacred authority', which used to be the Church. But what sets Kim Davis apart from the gay wedding cake baker is that the baker is a private proprietor, whereas Davis is an elected civil servant, whose job it is to execute the law. The fact that she is an elected official, implied that the voters approved of her moral stance. The problem in essence is, that secular law should not be trespassing on moral issues at all. Had the lawgivers not done so, Davis would today not be in a position in which she is obliged to act against her moral convictions or go to jail. A right is the freedom to act, not something others must do for you. But the federal Judge says he's above Natural Law as he tosses clerk Kim Davis in jail. This is the most frightening thing of it all: tyranny is already here and they don't even know it! Because the awareness of what constitutes tyranny simply isn't there.

“The idea of natural law superceding [sic] this court’s authority would be a dangerous precedent indeed,” U.S. District Judge David L. Bunning told Rowan County clerk Kim Davis. (Source)

Aug. 22, 2015

Ted Cruz Explains Liberty To A Gay Rights Activist

Aug. 21, 2015 Ted Cruz was ambushed by lesbian activist Ellen Page, who tried to shame him for not supporting homosexual marriage.

In the video Presidential candidate Ted Cruz is addressing the "gay wedding cake" conundrum. At the heart of the problem lie the different definitions of what constitutes a right. A right is the freedom to act. But Liberals have corrupted this concept into 'something that must be done for them', by the state or by society. The freedom of conscience of the former becomes discrimination in the eyes of the latter. (Source) Yet, we can't afford to lose our liberty, or we're moving in the direction of a Liberal dictatorship. Cruz translates the question into a Jewish rabbi or a Muslim imam. That should explain the matter, were it not that equality is NOT what Liberals are looking for. They want to redistribute power to minorities at the expense of the status quo.

July 11, 2015

ISIS Supporter Main Witness Against Pastor Accused Of Offending Islam

The prosecution of Pastor James McConnell for his controversial comments on Islam gets more bizarre by the day with the revelation that the main witness against him is a Muslim leader from Belfast who has openly declared admiration for Islamic State rule in Iraq.

June 20, 2015

UK Pastor Facing 6 Month Jail Sentence For "Satanic" Islam

The freedom of speech is closely related to the freedom of enquiry, the life blood of reason and science, without which prosperity and progress will no longer be possible. It is therefore of fundamental importance that the flow of information is not impeded. Political correctness (recently at root analyzed here) favors those who take offense at the expense of an opinion -- or objective truth -- as the case may be. But political correctness isn't about that. It is about nihilistic egalitarianism, levelling to the point of the lowest common denominator.

According to Marxism, humanity is divided into two camps - the haves and the have nots - who are forever competing each other for power. The politically correct brigades have appointed themselves as the redistributors of power and wealth. The 'haves' who fail to get how this works -- like @NatShupe in this tweet who expects equal treatment of 'whites' and Muslims -- will forever be the victims of this pernicious game.

The questions is, who are the 'haves' and who are the 'have nots'? Simple: white, heterosexual males are core 'haves'. They don't stand a chance. All minorities are 'have nots'. On a global scale, free, Western style countries (including Israel and India) are 'haves'. Every oppressive dictatorship, no matter what its alliance, is a 'have not'.